The Interrogative Void: Sluicing and Wh-Ellipsis in Forensic Inquiries

Leggi questo articolo ad alta voce

Attiva il microfono e leggi con il tuo ritmo. Le parole si illuminano mentre procedi, e nulla ti ferma quando una viene pronunciata male.

Il tuo audio non arriva mai a MovaReader: a riconoscerlo è il tuo browser. Informativa sulla privacy

Accedi per conservare questa sessione nella cronologia delle letture.

The Interrogative Void: Sluicing and Wh-Ellipsis in Forensic Inquiries

In the public hearing rooms of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London, the Iraq Inquiry (2009-2016), chaired by Sir John Chilcot, conducted a forensic post-mortem into British foreign policy. As committee members cross-examined senior intelligence coordinators, diplomats, and cabinet ministers, transcripts revealed a persistent syntactic pattern: sluicing. In theoretical linguistics, sluicing describes a specialized form of ellipsis wherein an interrogative embedded clause is stripped of its entire sentential content, leaving behind only the solitary wh-word ("They knew a dossier had been modified, but would not disclose who"). In official forensic scrutiny, this grammatical figure serves as an acute diagnostic marker, isolating the exact point where institutional memory fractures into deliberate evasion.

The rhetorical force of sluicing derives from its ruthless economy. An antecedent clause establishes that